On Fri, 27 Apr 2012, Hiremath, Vaibhav wrote:
> I will be waiting for your comment and conformation on, which family AM33xx
> device should fall in? Please refer to the mail-chain -
>>http://www.mail-archive.com/linux-omap@vger.kernel.org/msg67275.html
This decision turns out to be pretty important; it certainly affects the
AM33xx PRM/CM/clockdomain/powerdomain patches that I've been looking at.
Here is my suggestion, based on our previous practice. I am not so
sure that it is the best way, but it seems pretty reasonable"
Using CONFIG_ARCH_OMAP3 for CONFIG_ARCH_OMAPAM33XX doesn't make sense, as
far as I can tell. The main area of similarity between the other
CONFIG_ARCH_OMAP3 and AM33xx is the Cortex-A8. And even that MPU
subsystem is quite different between, say, the 3430/3630 and the AM33xx.
Most of the AM33xx is quite different from the 3430/3630: OMAP4-style PRCM
interface, OMAP4-style interconnect, etc. Plus, most of the
CONFIG_ARCH_OMAP3 code in our codebase is very 3430/3630-specific, like
the PM code.
This would seem to suggest that we should use CONFIG_ARCH_OMAP4. But that
option currently assumes an OMAP4-style MPU subsystem: SMP Cortex-A9,
PL310, etc. None of that is true for AM335x.
So first we have to decide whether the CONFIG_ARCH_OMAP* options should
have a strong dependency on the MPU type, as they currently do; or whether
they should focus on the way the SoC is integrated.
If we take the former option, then we should add a new
CONFIG_ARCH_OMAPAM33XX Kconfig option to arch/arm/Makefile, at the same
level as CONFIG_ARCH_OMAP1/2/3/4. Similarly, we should add a
CONFIG_ARCH_OMAPTI81XX Kconfig option.
However, if we take the second option, then we can probably shoehorn the
AM33XX and the TI81xx chips into CONFIG_ARCH_OMAP4.
Either way, it would be good to get AM33xx and TI81xx out of
CONFIG_ARCH_OMAP3, since keeping them there will require lots of
changes across the codebase to stop using CONFIG_ARCH_OMAP3 and use the
CONFIG_SOC_* Kconfig options instead.
- Paul